Werner Baumann wrote:
> Things are quite different, when you think of weak etags meaning not
> byte-by-byte, but semantically equal. But there is the whole mess. These
> are two completely different and unrelated concepts.
> - insecure (or unreliable): there is a small chance, that the entity
> changed without changing the etag, and the change may be completely
> arbitrary.
> - semantically equivalent, though not byte-by-byte equal.
>
> As long as you try to get this two concepts into one definition of weak
> etag, it will stay a confusing mess.
Plus, when you serve a "semantically equivalent" weak ETag, you can't
serve a strong ETag at the same time.
This is a silly limitation: supporting weak comparison (whatever it
means) shouldn't prevent strong caching from being possible!
-- Jamie